Not without reason, Dr Pearce speculates that the new film will amount to “Wormtongue’s revenge”, and will seek to impose homosexual/bisexual themes that have nothing to do with Tolkien’s life and work.

H&D is not a religious journal and we do not concern ourselves with questions of personal morality or the private lives of individuals.

However it is interesting to read Dr Pearce’s article in the context of last year’s speech by Marion Maréchal Le Pen (granddaughter of French National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen) to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an event where H&D used to be represented before the usual suspects ensured that our editor Mark Cotterill was excluded from the USA!

Marion Maréchal (as she now likes to be known to avoid confusion with her aunt Marine Le Pen), presented a challenge to Anglo-American conservative assumptions, which for at least the past couple of centuries have tended to be based on individualism.

Denouncing what she termed the “reign of egoism”, she pointed out:

“Today, even children have now become merchandise. We hear now in the public debate, we have the right to order a child from a catalog, we have the right to rent a woman’s womb, we have the right to deprive a child of a mother or father. No you don’t! A child is not a ‘right’. Is this the freedom that we want? No. We don’t want this atomized world of individuals without gender, without fathers, without mothers, and without nation.”

One doesn’t have to be a Catholic – or even a Christian – to get their point, nor does one have to be a racial nationalist. These ideas would be familiar academically to anyone who has read the works of Max Weber or R.H. Tawney (the latter was an Anglo-Catholic socialist).

Tolkien of course was a lifelong Catholic, and one of the underlying themes of The Lord of the Rings is the rejection of selfish power-seeking in favour of traditional community values – the values of the Shire as opposed to the values of Mordor.

H&D readers will justifiably fear that such values will either be absent or treated with postmodern contempt in the forthcoming Tolkien film.

Reaction to Friday’s conviction of Alison Chabloz for posting “grossly offensive” videos to YouTube has left great confusion as to whether England now has a de facto law against ‘Holocaust denial’, and if not whether such a law is likely to be enacted. The confusion has been heightened by contradictory messages from two prosecution witnesses, Gideon Falter and Stephen Silverman of the hardline Zionist pressure group Campaign Against Antisemitism. It was CAA that first brought a private prosecution against Ms Chabloz, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had decided not to bring charges. The CPS later obediently came into line, taking over this private prosecution at public expense.

District Judge John Zani convicted Ms Chabloz of three offences against the Communications Act 2003, but his ill-argued judgment has done nothing to clarify matters.

For H&D the main interest of this case involved one of the three songs for which Ms Chabloz was prosecuted – namely (((Survivors))), which mocked the lies and fantasies propagated by three supposed ‘Holocaust survivors’, Elie Wiesel, Irene Zisblatt and Otto Frank. H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton gave defence evidence, based on research at the British Library, which established that these three ‘survivors’, especially Wiesel and Zisblatt, had been subjected to pungent abuse from mainstream academics and commentators. As defence barrister Adrian Davies asked the court: can it be “grossly offensive” to call someone a liar if that person demonstrably is a liar?

Yet in his 24-page judgment, a copy of which has been made available to H&D, Judge Zani completely ignores this challenge, leaving it still an open question – even after Ms Chabloz’s conviction – whether one can be guilty of “grossly offensive” communications regardless of truth or falsehood. Is the communication liable to be judged “grossly offensive”, and therefore criminal, whether or not it is truthful?

In para 56 of his judgment, Zani states: “This court is not required to decide whether, for example, the Holocaust actually occurred, or whether records maintained in respect thereof are accurate.” At issue was whether the material was “grossly offensive”, and “the relevant test is the standards to be applied of an open and just multicultural society”. Zani relied on an earlier ruling by the House of Lords that “if a member of a relevant ethnic minority who heard the messages would have found them grossly offensive, it is not easy to escape the conclusion that the messages would be regarded as grossly offensive by reasonable persons in general, judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society.”

In other words, if a Jew is grossly offended by something, the rest of “reasonable” society is required also to regard it as “grossly offensive”.

In para 111 of his judgment, Zani appears to contradict his earlier claim that he would not be taking a view on the truth or falsehood of ‘Holocaust history’. He writes: “It is this court’s opinion that certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community as well as comments made of certain selected Jewish individuals (the defendant has here focused on Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt) have been deliberately portrayed in a way that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful.”

Does Judge Zani believe that the Communications Act forces Britons to hold a ‘respectful’ view of liars and fantasists?

Columnist Christopher Hitchens dismissed Elie Wiesel in grossly offensive terms: Judge Zani refused to explain when and how such attacks become criminalised

The learned Judge simply fails to answer the points made in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence concerning (for example) Elie Wiesel and Irene Zisblatt. Fifteen years before he attracted Alison Chabloz’s attention, Elie Wiesel was subjected to deliberately offensive criticism in a widely read column by one of the world’s leading journalists, the late Christopher Hitchens. In a column printed under the headline ‘Wiesel Words’ in the American left-liberal magazine The Nation on 19th February 2001, Mr Hitchens wrote: “Is there a more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel?” The saintly Wiesel is subjected to further pungent abuse at the hands of his fellow Jew, Prof. Norman Finkelstein, in the latter’s book, The Holocaust Industry, where he is accused of acting as “official interpreter of The Holocaust… By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure.”

Finkelstein goes to the heart of the matter in the following paragraph: “Apart from the frailties of memory, some Holocaust survivor testimony may be suspect for additional reasons. Because survivors are now revered as secular saints, one doesn’t dare question them. Preposterous statements pass without comment. Elie Wiesel reminisces in his acclaimed memoir that, recently liberated and only 18 years old, ‘I read The Critique of Pure Reason – don’t laugh! – in Yiddish.’ Leaving aside Wiesel’s acknowledgment that at the time ‘I was wholly ignorant of Yiddish grammar,’ The Critique of Pure Reason was never translated into Yiddish. …And to a New York Times reporter, he recalls that he was once hit by a taxi in Times Square. ‘I flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th.’ ‘The truth I present is unvarnished,’ Wiesel sighs, ‘I cannot do otherwise.’”

Holocaust fantasist Irene Zisblatt: the latest court judgment implies we must treat her lies with respect.

An even more ludicrous fantasist than Wiesel is another Chabloz target, Irene Zisblatt, who has best been exposed by a Polish Jewish scholar, Dr Joachim Neander. (Again Dr Neander’s work was submitted in Mr Rushton’s defence evidence.) He writes: “Mrs Zisblatt has gone public with a dubious story, and in a free society, she and her followers must stand scholarly criticism of it, even if it hurts. …What if the kids, who were deeply impressed by Mrs Zisblatt’s story, some day reach for a scholarly book about the Holocaust or a memoir vetted by experts and find out that things could not have happened as told by her? …Teaching falsehood, even with the best intentions, is always dangerous and counterproductive.”

Dr Neander details many obvious falsehoods and inconsistencies in Mrs Zisblatt’s story. For example, she claimed that when she was in the Birkenau camp, the crematorium chimneys were “spewing ashes” and that these hot ashes fell like rain around her. Most infamously, Mrs Zisblatt claimed that throughout her captivity she concealed four diamonds given her by her mother, repeatedly swallowing the diamonds and recovering them from among her faeces in the camp latrine.

Other absurd tales peddled by Zisblatt include her miraculous escape from a gas chamber, and her return visit to Birkenau in the 1990s when she claimed to have visited a “gas chamber” – “When I got to the entrance I grabbed onto the door, and dug my fingernails into the blue wall that was still blue from the cyclone B gas [sic]; I could smell the gas that was still very strong.” As Dr Neander points out, there are no such blue stains and no such gas smell – moreover the only remaining “gas chamber” is admitted to be a postwar reconstruction, in fact better described as a falsification (as discovered by Prof Robert Faurisson as long ago as 1976.)

Dr Neander concludes:”It was shown that Mrs Zisblatt’s Holocaust memoir does not stand scholarly scrutiny. As a whole, the story she tells about her camp experience leaves the impression that it was spiced up with ubiquitous Holocaust legends and enriched with fragments from other survivors’ memoirs. It is so full of implausibilities that one can understand some of those who – in a ‘worst case scenario’ – begin to doubt everything she tells.”

Yet according to Judge Zani it is “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal to mock the absurd fantasist / liar Irene Zisblatt, at any rate if such mockery is posted online, thus falling within the provisions of the Communications Act.

Gideon Falter (third from right) with colleagues from CAA and other Jewish organisations including Shomrim, meeting the Police & Crime Commissioner of Derbyshire, Hardyal Dhindsa

Does this mean that ‘Holocaust denial’ has been criminalised by the Chabloz case? In his first reaction after the verdict, Gideon Falter (chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism who had brought the original prosecution) delightedly asserted: “This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”

Yet Falter’s CAA colleague Steve Silverman quickly contradicted his chairman, writing: “There is a misconception that the trial of Alison Chabloz was about the criminalisation of Holocaust denial. This is a failure to understand the depth of her offending and the danger it presents to British Jews.” Silverman insisted: “This woman has been responsible for the vilest outpouring of antisemitic hatred I have ever encountered.” He gave various examples of her anti-Jewish rhetoric (strictly unrelated to ‘Holocaust’ revisionism) then concluded: “This is not Holocaust denial; it is the use of Holocaust denial to give people reasons to fear and hate Jews. Alison Chabloz did this for years, obsessively and with increasing malevolence.”

One interpretation of Judge Zani’s ruling is that – entirely regardless of historical truth or falsehood – Ms Chabloz’s crime was to have been deliberately and callously offensive, as a form of online revenge for having lost a job on a cruise ship a few years ago. Having failed to respond in any way to Mr Rushton’s defence evidence, Judge Zani writes in para 106: “In the court’s view none of the songs complained of can reasonably be considered to be an acceptable or legitimate attempt by Ms Chabloz to provoke reasoned debate on important topics, rather each of these songs appears to have been designed to spitefully offend others in as grotesque and unpleasant a manner as she felt able to achieve.”

In paras 113-114 Judge Zani concludes: “The defendant has failed, by some considerable margin, to persuade this court that her right to Freedom of Speech, as provided by Article 10, under the guise of her work as an artist, can properly provide her with immunity from prosecution in relation to each of the songs complained of. Having had the opportunity to assess the Defendant’s live evidence during the course of these proceedings, I am entirely satisfied that she will have intended to insult those to whom the material relates or, at least, that she must have recognised that there was a risk of so doing.”

CAA Patron Sir Eric Pickles, seen here with Prime Minister Theresa May, called within hours of the Chabloz judgment for a new law criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’

A few hours after the judgment, the government’s chief pro-Zionist toady Sir Eric Pickles (newly ennobled as Lord Pickles), former Conservative Party chairman, still chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel and official government “envoy for post-Holocaust issues”, called for a new law specifically criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’.

This exposes the cynical ploy behind the entire Chabloz case charade. A far longer sentence (up to seven years) would have been available had Ms Chabloz (like Jez Turner) been prosecuted under the Public Order Act, but this would require proving that her songs were likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.

The Communications Act allowed a far lower standard of proof. Once the court had found that songs posted to YouTube fell within the legal definitions of this particular Act, all the prosecution had to prove was “gross offensiveness”. The weasel words of the prosecution and their witnesses, endorsed by Judge Zani, allowed the court to evade the question of whether particular ‘Holocaust’ fables are true or false. We are thus in a very dangerous situation.

The only clearing of this judicial fog will have to come from a new, British based, thoroughly researched challenge to aspects of ‘Holocaust’ history: a challenge that is indubitably grounded in reasoned argument rather than anything that can be easily dismissed as spiteful abuse.

Jonathan Bowden, one of the outstanding figures of the New Right, has died of a heart attack at the age of 49.

Many of the clichés used by obituarists really are true in Jonathan’s case. He leaves a gap in the lives of his friends and comrades that will be impossible to fill. His contribution to our Movement was and will remain unique. He spoke to us from another age, or perhaps an age yet to come.

As all who heard him will vividly recollect, Jonathan Bowden was an exceptional orator, who could educate, entertain and inspire with often astounding erudition, fluency and power. In recent years some of Jonathan’s most memorable contributions were at meetings of the New Right in London, which he chaired. It fell to his New Right colleague Troy Southgate to announce Jonathan’s death this evening.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s Jonathan was associated with a group that was pushed to the fringes of the modern Conservative Party, though most of their views would have been perfectly mainstream a generation or two earlier. He had been a Conservative Party member in East London during the early 1980s, and at the end of the decade was among the organisers of Western Goals (UK), which hosted anti-communist and conservative speakers ranging from the CIA veteran and retired general John Singlaub to the French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Yet for Jonathan the “Western” values implied in that group’s title meant more than opposing the decaying husk of world communism. Jonathan was never a natural Conservative – neither his personality nor his ideology could be squashed into the Reagan-Thatcher mould. I have no doubt he would have agreed with Evelyn Waugh: the problem with the Conservative Party is that it has failed to turn the clock back by a single second.

Many of Waugh’s generation (and the preceding one) were among Jonathan Bowden’s pantheon of artistic and political heroes: Roy Campbell, Ezra Pound, W.B. Yeats, Ernst Jünger. That spirit lived on in post-war England through one particular hero for whom Jonathan Bowden worked for a few years, the novelist and journalist Bill Hopkins.

For those who rejected the entire spirit of post-war Britain – repelled by the enforced mediocrity, the racial melting pot, the denial of human instinct – the politics of the 1990s were to prove even more uncomfortable than the 1980s. While Bill Hopkins had long since withdrawn from the arena, Jonathan Bowden remained combative.

After a brief flicker of success around 1990 when its leaders won control of the Monday Club (the Conservative Party’s best known right-wing faction) Western Goals was effectively defunct by 1993, following the imprisonment of its Vice-President for fraud and attacks on its meetings by the left-wing media and associated rent-a-mobs.

Jonathan Bowden and a handful of colleagues went on to form the Revolutionary Conservative Caucus, and later the Bloomsbury Forum. These were efforts to rescue something from the High Tory tradition that had died out in the higher reaches of the Conservative Party during the Churchill era. From this perspective, Margaret Thatcher was correctly seen as a Victorian Liberal rather than a Tory.

In 1994 Jonathan was among a group of controversial activists whose membership of a Conservative Party branch in Colchester, Essex, attracted media attention. This was a period when the “far right” was becoming newsworthy thanks to the election of Derek Beackon as the BNP’s first borough councillor. Jonathan’s colleagues in what was denounced as an “extremist” infiltration of the Conservative Party branch included Mark Cotterill (now EFP chairman and editor of Heritage and Destiny), Dave Moon (a former National Front activist), and Sam Swerling (a college lecturer and former councillor who later joined the BNP).

Jonathan had long been friendly with those on the Right who crossed over from the outer reaches of Monday Club Conservatism to associate with racial nationalist groups and parties. In 2000 he allied with old friends Adrian Davies and Eddy Butler, as well as new comrades Steve and Sharron Edwards, to form the Freedom Party, which briefly posed a successful challenge to Nick Griffin’s BNP at a time (2000-2002) when Griffin’s corruption was already evident to those who chose to see it.

When the Freedom Party’s challenge faded, Jonathan Bowden took the bold decision to join the British National Party himself, vainly hoping that he could exert some beneficial influence, and he quickly became one of the party’s most popular figures, touring branches around the country with characteristic verve. For a short time he held the post of BNP cultural officer.

During the summer of 2007 Jonathan found himself on the wrong side of his party leader in a factional dispute, and was ruthlessly traduced by the leader’s minions in a series of grossly defamatory online articles. He swiftly resigned from the party, and though he was prepared to help out some of those BNP individuals whom he continued to respect, he eventually ceased all activity on the BNP’s behalf in 2010, by which time he was working with Troy Southgate, Michael Woodbridge and other old friends to build the New Right as a forum for wide-ranging discussions not only of politics but of philosophy, religion, art, history and more.

Inevitably the strains and stresses of nationalist politics took their toll on his health, but Jonathan’s many friends in the Movement were delighted by his return to the frontline during the last year with regular appearances at the New Right and at Jez Turner’s London Forum. A fuller obituary will appear in the next issue of Heritage and Destiny, and we are fortunate that several of Jonathan’s speeches to the New Right and elsewhere were filmed. Some are already available online, and it is hoped that a compilation will appear on DVD.

Jonathan Bowden has died before his 50th birthday, but his courage, his insight and his sheer character will remain ever present for those who continue the struggle for a better England.

Ron Paul (left) with Don Black (centre), founder of the Stormfront nationalist internet forum, and his son Derek Black, Republican Party activist and radio host.

The 2012 presidential election might yet break the mould of American politics, with Texas congressman Ron Paul winning substantial support for policies that are the direct opposite of everything that has dominated the Republican Party since the 1950s.

So-called ‘paleo-conservatives’ have been unsure how far Ron Paul shares their views, since he has shown little interest in the social conservative agenda (such as opposition to ‘gay rights’ and abortion) that was the main plank of previous challenges from the Republican right. Paul is also opposed to the protectionist economic nationalism espoused by Pat Buchanan, the strongest previous conservative opponent of the Washington insider consensus, though he backed Buchanan’s 1992 presidential campaign. He has a radical libertarian commitment to the ideals of the U.S. Constitution, and supports the laissez-faire and sound money theories of the Austrian economic and political theorists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

While libertarianism might seem the opposite of racial nationalism, there can be little doubt that Paul’s determination to cut the federal government’s bloated spending programmes would in practice advance the interests of White Americans, who now have to subsidise a bloated politically correct bureaucracy supporting welfare-dependant ‘African-Americans’.

Ron Paul (right) as a young congressman was strongly endorsed by Ronald Reagan, even though Reagan's policies in office diverged from the fiscal conservatism he had espoused in the 1970s.

The Federal Reserve is the chief culprit behind the economic crisis. Its unchecked power to create endless amounts of money out of thin air brought us the boom and bust cycle and causes one financial bubble after another. Since the Fed’s creation in 1913 the dollar has lost more than 96% of its value, and by recklessly inflating the money supply the Fed continues to distort interest rates and intentionally erodes the value of the dollar.

During the current financial crisis, terrified by the prospect of Paul harnessing public anger at the bankocracy, Washington’s political establishment has not taken him on directly, but instead has sought to sideline his proposals through detailed amendments in congressional committee sessions.

Even more radical than his financial arguments – and quite impossible to reconcile with the Ziocon agenda that dominates Capitol Hill – is Ron Paul’s foreign policy agenda.

Instead of securing our borders, we’ve been planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression. … America first. That is what Ron Paul‘s national defense proposal is all about. And with America he means all Americans, not just the elite. If elected President, Ron Paul will continue his efforts to secure our borders, safely bring our troops back home, and finally overhaul the intelligence apparatus in cooperation with intelligence professionals rather than political opportunists.

As Scott McConnell points out in the February 2012 issue of The American Conservative, this non-interventionist position represents the views of:

…a group of millions that can claim no prominent leaders in Congress, no regular newspaper columnists to shape and focus its thinking, no significant representation on the cable news shows to validate and amplify its ideas. What might happen if this group found a political voice? More than any other factor, this question accounts for the vehemence of the attacks on Ron Paul.

Sure enough a mysterious group of internet hackers has targetted the website and emails of the American Third Position, a small party run by Prof. Kevin MacDonald and Dr Tomislav Sunic, to discover “evidence” of connections between Ron Paul and the racial nationalist movement. The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has denounced him in strong language:

Ron Paul has a terrible record when it comes to Israel, and when it comes to the issues that matter to the Jewish community and when it comes to his apparent views about Jews in general.

So far Paul has not won a primary or caucus, but polled 21.5% in Iowa, 23% in New Hampshire, 13% in South Carolina (where his opposition to military spending and lack of interest in social conservatism was expected to be a big handicap), 19% in Nevada, and 27% in Minnesota.

The social conservative agenda is represented this year by former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, whose Christian Zionism often takes a rabidly apocalyptic tone, at the opposite pole from the Ron Paul / Pat Buchanan foreign policy.

Pat Buchanan twice entered the Republican nomination race during the 1990s, before finally quitting the party for his doomed Reform Party candidature in 2000. The 1992 campaign was a quixotic effort to unseat President George H.W. Bush. Buchanan focused mostly on economic issues and won 37% in the opening New Hampshire primary, eventually gaining 23% of the primary votes as the only serious challenger to Bush. Eventually backing the Bush campaign, Buchanan used his strong primary performance to influence the 1992 Republican convention, where his speech stressed the social conservative agenda:

There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.

In 1996 Buchanan fought his strongest campaign in a far more open field of Republican candidates seeking to take on Bill Clinton. Again his main focus was on the decline of American manufacturing industry, calling for protectionist measures and opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA – signed in 1994. After winning early caucuses in Alaska and Louisiana, and very narrowly winning the New Hampshire primary, Buchanan was overtaken by the better financed campaign of Senate majority leader Bob Dole, but he still ended with 21% of the overall primary votes.

2000 Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan (centre) with Mark Cotterill (left), then a member of his campaign staff and now EFP Chairman, and Edward Cassidy (right), then an activist with the American Friends of the BNP

Buchanan was now seen as the leading standard bearer of the conservative movement, and many racial nationalist activists (including H&D editor Mark Cotterill) rallied to his campaign in 2000 when he quit the Republican Party and won the Reform Party nomination. This third party was founded to support a presidential bid in 1996 by the maverick billionaire Ross Perot, who won support from a broad coalition of voters disenchanted by Washington insider politics, but had never in any meaningful sense been sympathetic to racial nationalism.

Significantly by 2000 Buchanan was stressing his opposition to ‘neo-conservative’ foreign policy, or what I have termed the Ziocons. This was more than a year before the events of 9/11 put the Ziocons in full control, but Buchanan and Ron Paul (who rejected early offers to defect to the Reform Party) were already highlighting the danger. Buchanan explained his resignation from the Republicans in these terms:

The Republican Party at the national level has ceased to be my party. This divorce began around the end of the Cold War when President (George) Bush declared it to be a New World Order party and began intervening all over the world. While he and I were allies and friends during the Cold War, I just felt that once the Cold War was over the United States should return to a more traditional non-intervention foreign policy.

Sadly Buchanan took the advice of his sister Bay and purged his campaign of anyone linked to racial nationalism – especially of anyone who had previously backed David Duke – failing to heed the warning of his old friend Sam Francis that this would eviscerate his campaign. He then compounded his error by opting for a black vice-presidential running mate, former high school teacher Ezola Foster. The resulting electoral meltdown saw the Buchanan-Foster ticket poll just 0.4%. Their 449,225 votes nationwide was less than David Duke had polled in the state of Louisiana alone, but was remarkably similar to the 431,750 polled by Ron Paul as a Libertarian candidate for President in 1988.

The logic of Ron Paul’s policies would push him into breaking away from the Republicans and fighting a third party campaign later this year, but I suspect that (having seen the dismal failure of the 2000 Buchanan campaign) he will be tempted to remain within the party, seek to influence the Republican convention platform, and build a long term presidential campaign for his son, Senator Rand Paul, elected in Kentucky in 2010.

Perhaps the most important short-term impact of Ron Paul’s campaign this year — and of the continuing activism and campaigning journalism of Pat Buchanan — will be to make it a lot more difficult for the Ziocons to railroad America into military conflict with Iran. The campaigns of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich (the latter bankrolled by Jewish casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson), as well as the now defunct campaigns of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, were at the most warmongering end of the Christian Zionist spectrum, and even frontrunner Mitt Romney has generally echoed these themes, in more moderate terms.

The entire world — not only American conservatism — has cause to be grateful for the voice of sanity coming from just one presidential candidate in 2012: Ron Paul.

David Duke (centre) speaking at the 1999 St George's Day rally of the American Friends of the BNP with Roy Armstrong (left) and Nick Griffin (right), elected later that year to the BNP leadership. Former Louisiana state representative Duke had previously campaigned for Governor of Louisiana and in 1992 for the Republican presidential nomination.

Words fail me... If this goes ahead, people should be taking to the streets in their millions over it!

DAILY TELEGRAPH, 10 Feb 2010: Britain could be forced to help bail-out some of Europe’s crisis-hit economies with tens of billions of pounds, it is feared. (Britain contributes 20 per cent of the EU budget.)

Gordon Brown is under mounting pressure from MPs on all sides to ensure that only eurozone countries contribute to a bail-out of Greece, whose economy is teetering on the brink of collapse.

The Prime Minister will this morning arrive in Brussels for a crucial European leaders’ summit amid fears that the UK could get dragged into a full European Union bail out plan.

Downing Street, however, insisted that the focus of responsibility should fall on the eurozone countries and, failing that, a G20 group of leading nations solution.

Last night European officials were involved in furious efforts to try and complete a €20 billion rescue package, designed to halt the looming crisis in Greece before it spreads to other countries. France and Germany were at the forefront of the eurozone negotiations.

However, Mr Brown – when challenged in the Commons over Britain’s position – was unable to rule out Britain’s involvement in a a Greek rescue package.

Was this author was too scared to accuse the Cultural Marxists running New Labour of outright treason? The info obtained by Migration Watch in their Freedom of Information request proves, not just treason, but attempted genocide of whites within the British Isles. Racial nationalists have been vindicated.

Telegraph Blogs, 10 Feb 2010: Incredible. I am stunned. Back in October Andrew Neather, a former Labour party speechwriter, let the cat out the bag when he said that the Government had encouraged immigration “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. But while Neather quickly backtracked, documents now released under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that he was telling the truth. Rather than being the result only of incompetence or a short-term economic measure to reduce inflation, Labour’s policy of runaway immigration was a deliberate and cynical attempt to change the face of British society.

The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.

The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.

If ever you needed proof of media bias (oh, and how Amnesty International doesn’t do what it’s constitution states it exists to do, namely: “to protect people wherever justice, fairness, freedom and truth are denied.”)…

Lefty Journalists’ organisation, 9 Feb 2010: Campaigning journalists and media workers are to launch EXPOSE, a campaign aimed at “revealing the undemocratic and racist nature” of the British National Party.

The new campaign will tackle the BNP’s “attempts to construct a respectable public image” and support media workers who refuse to work on uncritical programmes or material [emphasis added], the group announced today.

EXPOSE aims to brief reporters and news editors to help them challenge the BNP’s statements and spokespersons in the run-up to the UK election, the campaigners said.

A launch rally at the Amnesty UK headquarters in London on 23 February…

Whitelaw Towers posts this on shenanigans in Aussie Nationalism but it all sounds so very, very familiar…

Whitelaw Towers, 09 Jan 2010: Who says history doesn’t repeat? The APP really needs to get their collective head around this.

It’s 1977. We are all getting sick and tired of re runs from Mash, and one Lyenko Urbanchich an old friend of the Darby dynasty and David Clarke, has just gotten through telling about 20 patriotic type people in a room at the British Ex Services Club, that the Liberal Party is the natural vehicle for Aussie patriotism. He remarks that some softies are in charge and they are morally lax and weak in really standing up to the Reds. His faction will take over the party and restore the hard line of Menzies. “What about immigration?” someone asks. Lyenko says that “traditional sources” are being downplayed right now by the Liberal government, but when the faction gets stronger, that should mean more people “like us” coming in.

Yes what about immigration I bet he didn’t discuss it with the 200 Vietnamese he’d just signed up for Liberal branches? I bet he discussed it with his mate Oleg Kavanenko who said in print that anyone could come to Australia as long as they were anti-communist. Boy, this all sounds so familiar, swap the reds for Muslims and the old boys above for Darby and Fred Nile and bango – it’s 2010. All they need is a Party to string along. Anyway back to Mash re runs.

Even though this is Labour’s little ‘baby’, truth is Cameron’s lot are just as likely to go ahead with it if they win the next GE.

FROM THE TWISTED MIND OF HARRIET HARMAN, 07 Jan 2010:

October 2010

Most of the provisions of the [Discrimination Bill, known in ‘polite’ and deceitful circles as the] Equality Bill are expected to come into force as the Equality Act 2010. The purposes of this legislation are to harmonise the different strands of discrimination law and strengthen protection. Changes in the draft bill include:

Extending the prohibition on “associative and perceptive” discrimination and harassment to all discrimination strands. [I.e. If you were found guilty of discriminating against someone else and I perceived that you were discriminating against me, then you must have been!]

Employers will be explicitly liable for failing to prevent harassment by third parties. [I.e. Your employers will become the new Equality Thought Police to prevent themselves being heavily sued – thanks for your understanding, boss!]

Expanding the concept of positive action to allow employers to recruit or promote someone from an under-represented group where they have a choice between two or more “equally suitable” candidates. [I.e. More discrimination against white men, particularly white working-class men.]

Introducing the concept of a discrimination claim based on two combined characteristics where there may not be enough evidence to prove discrimination based on one characteristic alone. [“Iz it coz I iz a black queer?”]

Under the current proposals, there will be the potential for employees to claim direct sex discrimination in respect of pay and conditions based on a hypothetical comparator where there is no “equal” male-female. The majority of claims, therefore, should still be brought under the traditional equal pay concepts, rather than sex discrimination, but this new avenue will enable an individual to claim even where there is no actual comparator. [I.e. Where there wasn’t any evidence to prove sex discrimination in pay levels, all of a sudden we can invent it! Girl power!!]

An extension of age discrimination legislation to cover the provision of goods and services. [That one’s fair enough, actually.]

Introducing an “occupational requirement” defence across all protected characteristics and removing the job-specific “genuine occupational qualifications” in sex, gender reassignment and race cases. [I.e. Only only one-armed lesbian gypsies will be able to become One-Armed Lesbian Gypsy Outreach Workers. The rest of us won’t be able to complain we didn’t get the “job”… which is fair enough, actually… since we’ve got real jobs to be getting on with.]

Tribunals will be able to make recommendations that respondents who have lost discrimination claims take steps to remedy matters, not just for the benefit of the individual claimant, but also for the benefit of the wider workforce. Where the wider workforce is concerned, however, there is no remedy for failure to comply with the recommendation. [I.e. More tax-payers’ money will go to legal aid for lost cases to be resurrected for the ‘greater good’ of the poor and down-trodden victims, oops, minorities.]